Extra telephone charges an unwelcome surprise

John and Susan Miner take a no-frills approach to their home telephone service.
They have no fax machine, no Internet connection and no voice mail service, aside from an answering machine.
The Miners do not even have a telecommunications relay system right now for John, who is deaf, to communicate by telephone through an intermediary.
So, John Miner noticed right away when a series of unexpected charges started popping up on the couple’s Verizon bill from “other providers.” About a year ago, he found the first one. It was a $24.53 charge attributed to a company called USBI.
In March, a $19.95 charge showed up from something called “Bus2Bus.” In May, a $14.95 “fax monthly service fee” was levied by Network Assurance, and in July, there was a $15.37 charge from ESBI, also for a “fax monthly service fee.”
There was nothing about any of those companies that sounded familiar to Miner. He talked it over with his wife, and she didn’t recognize any of the names or charges, either.
“I kept asking myself: Where does USBI come from? What’s ‘Network Assurance?’,” Miner told me.
Then, he went to work disputing the charges. This was no small chore, and he’s still at it.
Miner contacted representatives of Verizon and of each of the companies listed on his bills multiple times. Because of his deafness, he used public library Internet connections to contact relay service representatives, typed his own questions and complaints on the keyboard and relied on relay service employees to speak his words and listen to the company representatives on the other end.
He has also has sent e-mails and letters, noting his complaints and the dates he made them on his old bills.
Billing statements from the last year show Miner has managed to secure credits for almost all of the charges. He remains determined, however, to see a $24.53 continuing balance stemming from one of the third-party charges removed from his account, and he’s been frustrated by the difficulty.
“I did not authorize anything. I told them a number of times, in writing, that I do not know anything about this,” he said. “Why did they allow the third-party charge to be issued on my bill? It made me very angry and upset.”
The Miners, as it turns out, were apparent victims of an illegal practice known as “cramming,” in which unscrupulous companies place unauthorized charges on local telephone bills. Sometimes a consumer has inadvertently agreed to be billed for such a service — perhaps because of fine print on a sweepstakes entry or a deliberately misconstrued statement to a telemarketer.
But in many cases, consumer advocates say, the consumer played no part in triggering the charge.
Truth-in-Billing rules of the Federal Communications Commission require telephone companies to identify the service provider associated with the charge and note that non-payment of the charges will not result in a disconnection. They also must display one or more toll-free numbers to call to ask about or dispute any charge on the bill.
I contacted Verizon about the charges placed on the Miners’ bill and to talk about the problem of cramming in general.
A Verizon representative did contact the Miners on Wednesday, and I am hopeful that the remaining disputed charge will be removed as a result of that discussion.
The Miners already have taken a precautionary step to prevent any further third-party charges by asking Verizon to place a “block” on such charges. That has been effective.
Verizon spokesman John Bonomo assured me that the Miners’ experience with the companies listed on their bills will prompt a review by Verizon, which can opt to cut the companies off from billing services or instruct them to “clean up their act” if wrongdoing is found.
“We hold their feet to the fire on these things,” he said.
I am troubled that the charges could show up on the Miners’ bill in the first place, though, and I think that state and federal regulations to prevent it should be strengthened. It’s not right that John Miner should be responsible for finding, challenging and resolving charges that he never authorized.
Bonomo told me that many small telecommunications-related companies contract with Verizon to carry out billing and collection operations, and in some cases, the contracts are with so-called aggregators, which contract with multiple small companies to place the charges on local phone bills.
Such arrangements stem from years-old legislation requiring local telephone companies to provide billing for long-distance calling services.
I couldn’t immediately find any proposed legislation to step up consumer protections against cramming in New York, but there are some proposals floating around elsewhere.
The Federal Trade Commission has recommended that the Federal Communications Commission take a number of steps to eliminate cramming. Those would include requiring local phone companies and billing aggregators to work harder to confirm that companies are issuing legitimate charges before giving them access to billing services.
Providers and billing aggregators also would have to take more steps to investigate the validity of charges challenged by consumers.
In Illinois, a new law prohibits third parties from adding charges to a consumer’s telephone bill without explicit consent.
Those all sound like excellent steps in the right direction to me, and I’d hope that New York’s assorted watchdogs could craft something even stronger to spare consumers a monthly scavenger hunt for surprises on their phone bills.